P.D. Mulye, J. - (1.)The State, after obtaining leave, has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of the respondent of offence under Sec. 7 (1) read with Sec. 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act recorded by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Badanawar, on 24th Nov., 1981 in Cr Case No. 396 of 1979.
(2.)The fact giving rise to this appeal as per prosecution case may be stated, in brief, that on 14-7-79 the respondent, who is a milk vendor, was carrying milk which was intended for sale to be delivered at the hotel of Kalidas. He was intercepted by the Food Inspector P. W. 1 from whom the Food Inspector purchased 660 mls. of milk for purpose of analysis. He gave notice, paid the price, obtained receipt, prepared the Panchanama, divided the sample into three bottles equally, added formalin, sealed, sent one bottle to the Public Analyst for purpose of analysis and the other two to the local health authority. Thus, all the formalities required to be completed were done by the Food Inspector. The report of the Public Analyst Ex. P-15 indicated that the sample of buffalo milk was found to be adulterated and below the prescribed standard as the fat contents were found to be only 2.9 per cent and solid non-fat 4.98 per cent. A copy of the report was also sent to the respondent. On these facts the respondent was prosecuted, which on trial resulted iD his acquittal.
(3.)The defence of the respondent was that at that time when the sample was taken he was carrying the milk for being delivered to his friend who was admitted in the hospital and that it was not intended for sale, though the Food Inspector forcibly obtained the sample.